And now:Ish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: X-Originating-IP: [207.179.186.14] From: Robert Quiver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Fwd: [VERY LONG] CPT meeting notes Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 17:21:22 PDT Please Post the following: Title VI - Land Theft trudges forward in Pierre SD But Janklow not seen in building..... >Subject: [VERY LONG] CPT meeting notes >Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 22:07:29 > >Following is a compilation of notes taken by Christian Peacemaker Teams >observers attending the following meetings: > >--Joseph Westphal meeting with Treaty Council, Rapid City, June 8 >--2nd Partnership Meeting to Implement Title VI, Pierre, June 9-10 > >These are detailed notes and very long -- enter at your own risk :-) > >(notes are summaries of statements made, not direct quotes, unless in >quotation >marks) > >abbreviations: >COE = Corps of Engineers >GSN = Great Sioux Nation >BHSNTC = Black Hills Sioux Nation Treaty Council >NAGPRA = Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act >NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act >OST = Oglala Sioux Tribe >SRST = Standing Rock Sioux Tribe >CRST = Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe >CCST = Crow Creek Sioux Tribe >RST = Rosebud Sioux Tribe >LBST = Lower Brule Sioux Tribe >BIA = Bureau of Indian Affairs >EIS = Environmental Impact Statement >USFWS = US Fish & Wildlife Service >SDGF&P = South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Treaty Council Meeting with Asst Sec of the Army Joseph Westphal >Tuesday, June 8, 1999: 2 - 5 pm >Alpine Room, Rushmore Civic Center, Rapid City, SD > >-- notes by CPTers Carl Meyer, Jake Kaufman, and Patty Burdette > >Present: around 50 people. Primary speakers are from BHSNTC, >Asst Sec of the Army Joseph Westphal for the COE, and >representatives of SRST. > >Joseph Westphal, Asst Sec of the Army and head of the COE: >--COE did not support or oppose the Act during the legislative >process, but is simply charged by Congress with the task of >implementing it. Believes there is strong support for the Act in >Congress and that funding for implementation of the Act will be >appropriated. COE is just trying to do its job and implement the >Act as quickly and efficiently as possible. >--COE is trying to have a relationship with both the state and >the GSN that will allow them to efficiently complete the >environmental and wildlife habitat mitigation work required by >the Act. >--COE is working across the country to improve relationships with >tribes and improve tribal policy. There are serious issues >related to cultural sites along the river, and COE would like to >deal with those issues in a sensitive and appropriate way. >Didn't mention treaty concerns. > >Chief Oliver Red Cloud of BHSNTC: >--Treaty rights issues important. It appears that Congress >doesn't recognize the Sioux' treaty rights. >--Invited those present to ask Westphal whatever questions they >might have. > >Jesse Taken Alive, SRST Tribal Council member, representing the >Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (which withdrew from negotiations >regarding the legislation, although it has land within >reservation boundaries along the river under Corps management), >was invited to speak by Chief Red Cloud: >--SRST is on record opposing the legislation. Contrary to false >reports otherwise, SRST is still in firm opposition to it. >--Asked if participation in this meeting qualified as >participation in the COE consultation process of implementing the >legislation. Westphal said, in essence, that it did, and Jesse >requested for the record that it be made clear that SRST >participation in the meeting did not in any way convey their >consent to continued implementation of the legislation. >--Gave Westphal copies of the various SRST Tribal Council >resolutions stating opposition to the Act. >--SRST is in favor of land being returned to the Cheyenne River >Sioux Tribe and Lower Brule Tribe, and is in favor of federal >trust funds allowing those tribes to complete wildlife habitat >mitigation and other work along the river, but is absolutely >opposed to any land transfer to the state. >--Washington DC thinks the tribes have been properly consulted >and are OK with this legislation, but that is not true. >--A hundred years ago, we were fighting over this land. Now >we're here talking about it. The only thing that hasn't changed >is that the land is still being taken from us. >--In July of '97, in the process of forming the legislation, >Daschle said that if the tribes along the river could not come to >an agreement, the process would not continue. Yet he continued >with the legislation even after all but two tribes withdrew and >registered their opposition. >--We are very concerned about the differences between what we are >told will happen and what actually happens. >--You need to get us a hearing in Washington DC regarding this >legislation. > >Westphal response: >--COE not included in the process at all pr ior to passage of the >legislation. We simply have to implement it. We plan to do >that, maintaining full compliance with all relevant legislation, >including NEPA, NAGPRA. > >Jesse Taken Alive: >--Five or six years ago, we (SRST) tried to get the Corps to >return our taken riverfront lands administratively, as they're >supposed to do under the eminent domain takings law. We had to >jump through so many hoops, and this long bureaucratic process. >We still haven't gotten our lands. Why is this Act being pushed >forward like this? Where are the hoops in front of this >legislation that we had to jump through? > >Tex Hall, chairman of the Three Affiliated Tribes (Hidatsa, >Mandan, and Arikara), with reservations upriver in ND, but >ancestral remains in the land to be transferred: >--Our ancestors' remains are affected by this legislation. We >have federal protection for those sites, through NAGPRA and other >laws. Concerned this protection won't last under state >administration. >--We haven't been included in this process, we haven't been >consulted. We request oversight hearings on this legislation. > >Westphal: >--We need to be realistic here and define what exactly >"consultation" means. > >A CCST Tribal Council member addressed Westphal regarding other >unrelated issues on Crow Creek Reservation. > >Westphal told a mostly irrelevant and somewhat offensive story >about the Mapuche Indians in Chile, where he was born. > >Jesse Taken Alive: >--Asked Westphal to read Article 12 of the 1868 Ft Laramie >Treaty: "No treaty for the cession of any portion or part of the >reservation herein described... shall be of any validity or >force... unless executed and signed by at least three-fourths of >all the adult male Indians... occupying or interested in the >same..." >--"All we're asking is, let's not break these treaties anymore." > >Chip Smith, secretary to Westphal: >--Clause 607(a)(3) of the Mitigation Act does state that "Nothing >in this Title diminishes or affects any treaty right that is in >effect on the date of enactment of this Act." > >Westphal: >--If this legislation is in violation of treaties, that may be >something for the courts to decide. > >Elder Johnson Holy Rock of the BHSNTC: >--Leaving OST, SRST, RST, and CCST out of this legislation and >including CRST and LBST is a classic divide and conquer. >--The US doesn't claim the right to unilaterally alter or nullify >treaties with other countries. Why do they do it to us? > >Peter Capossela, attorney for SRST: >--Thanks for paying attention to us, finally. All these years >we've hardly been able to get anyone in the COE Omaha office to >even answer the phone, and now finally with this bill you're >coming all the way out here to meet with us. >--A 1994 Act of Congress required that the Corps return unused >riverfront land within SRST reservation and Ft Berthold >reservation (in ND). The Corps still has not implemented that >transfer. Why does this new Act, passed just last October, get >priority? We all know why -- because the state is getting land. >So only tribes who agree to give up Treaty lands to the state >will get their land back, it looks like. >--The Mitigation Act is self-contradictory and thus non- >implementable. Sec 605(a) requires that land containing Nat Am >cultural sites be transferred to the state of SD. Sec 605(h) >states specifically that NAGPRA will continue to apply to this >land, and yet NAGPRA specifically states that it only applies to >federal lands. > >Jesse Taken Alive: >--If we go to court and challenge this legislation and win, we'll >still lose the land. The court will let the land go to the state >and try to give us compensation for it. Anywhere else in the >country where land is taken away illegally, it is given back. >Here in Indian Country, we just get "compensated." >--Sec 605(a), mandating the transfer to the state, also >contradicts Sec 607(a)(3), requiring that no treaty rights be >affected, because 1868 treaty guarantees this land to GSN. >Repeatedly asked if any COE representatives present could tell >him which specific treaty rights are referred to by 607(a)(3), >and how COE will deal with that clause. Westphal responded that >COE needs to study the issue. Verbally committed COE to doing an >internal "treaty analysis" as part of studying the issues >involved in implementing the Act. > >Eileen Iron Cloud, OST member from Pine Ridge: >--Mentioned LaFramboise camp and CPT, requested oversight >hearings on Act. > >Peter Capossela: >--Congress is not as firmly behind this as you (Westphal) seem to >think. The Senate select committee on Indian Affairs is >deferring to Daschle, but the House committee on Resources is >ready to schedule hearings on the merits, just waiting on Rep >Thune from SD to give his OK (protocol issue). > >Westphal: >--Verbally committed to contacting representatives and Senator >Daschle to request oversight hearings on the Mitigation Act. > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >2nd Partnership Meeting to Implement Title VI (Mitigation Act) >Wednesday, June 9, 1999 -- 10:30 am - 5:00 pm >Tuesday, June 10, 1999 -- 9:00 am - 12:45 pm >Iron Horse Inn, Pierre, SD > >-- notes by CPTers Carl Meyer, Jake Kaufman, and Patty Burdette > >Present: >David Vader, COE Nat Am Coordinator >Candace Thomas, COE Title VI (Mitigation Act) Project Manager >Paul Wemhoener, COE Operations Manager for Omaha District >James Crews, COE >Paul Blakey, COE >Peg O'Bryan, COE >Gordon Bailey, Army General Counsel >Chip Smith, aide to Asst Sec of the Army Joseph Westphal >Eric Washburn, aide to Sen Daschle >Tom Young, BIA Aberdeen (Day 1) >Paul Hoffman, BIA hydrologist (Day 1) >John Cooper, Sec of SD Game, Fish, and Parks (Day 1) >Rick Collignon, SD Game, Fish, and Parks >Tom McCulloch, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation >Nell McPhillips, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service >Michael Jandreau, LBST Tribal Chairman >Scott Jones, LBST public relations director >Joel Bich, LBST biologist >Louis DuBray, CRST Tribal Vice-Chairman (Day 1) >Haroll Frazier, CRST Tribal Council member >Steve Emory, CRST Attorney General >Tom Van Norman, CRST attorney >various other representatives of CRST, LBST, BIA, and COE >Reginald Cedar Face, Pine Ridge Oglala (Day 1) >Isaac White Face, Treaty Council elder, Oglala (Day 2) >Emily and Eileen Iron Cloud, Pine Ridge Oglala (Day 2) >Paul Robertson, South Dakota Peace and Justice (Day 2) >Tom Cheyenne, LaFramboise camp (Day 2) >Rich Shangreaux, LaFramboise camp (Day 2) >Clayton "Boots" Quiver, LaFramboise camp (Day 2) >Angelo Horse, LaFramboise camp (Day 2) >Melinda Martin, Pierre camp supporter (Day 2) >CPT observer Carl Meyer >CPT observer Bob Epp (Day 1 am, Day 2) >CPT observer Jake Kaufman (Day 1 pm, Day 2) >CPT observers Patty Burdette and Ron Friesen (Day 2) > >(Day 1) >In review of Memorandum for Record from 1st Title VI >Implementation Partnership Meeting (April 12-13, 1999, Wash DC), >CRST rep Harold Frazier noted that two items (Items 9 and 41) >dealing with treaty concerns were included in the list of issues >yet to be resolved. Said he had understood that all present at >the last meeting had agreed that those would be deleted. General >agreement with that (no-one there to object), so items were >deleted. > >[note: COE will still consider the treaties in doing their Title >VI Implementation work. This larger partnership group, however, >will not discuss them as an issue to be resolved in the >implementation of Title VI.] > >Washburn: >--Textual amendments to Title VI giving fishing and hunting >rights to CRST and LBST along with land and clarifying that USGS >water-flow impact study won't affect tribal water rights are in >Water Resources Development Act, which has not yet passed, but is >expected to. >--COE has been directed in Kosovo relief funding bill to >reprogram $800,000 into implementation of Title VI for FY1999. >--FY2000 Appropriations bill in Senate Appropriations Committee >contains $3 million in funding for the COE to implement Title VI. >House Appropriations Committee has not yet met to consider FY2000 >appropriations. Expects that somewhere between $2 and $3 million >will be appropriated for Title VI implementation in final bill. >--Senate select committee on Indian Affairs has agreed to oversee >process of applying NAGPRA to land that is not under federal >control (ie land that will be transferred to the state under >Title VI). This should not be an obstacle to implementation of >Title VI. > >Jandreau: >--We appreciate the participation of all those who care to be a >part of this process. >--Let's get this transfer done and stop going over all this old >ground in discussions. > >DuBray: >--We just want to get this land transfer done as quickly as >possible. >--We all know this transfer won't affect water usage, so let's >not let the USGS water-flow impact study hold this thing up. > >Cooper: >--We've got to move this process along quickly. (LBST and CRST) >Chairmen Jandreau and Bourland are taking heat over this Act from >"uninformed vested interests." >--The Governor (Janklow) has "no ulterior motives" in this Act. >His only goals are > a) resolving jurisdictional issues > b) maintaining recreational facilities along the river > c) wildlife habitat mitigation >--Supports categorical exclusion under NEPA (ie no EIS) on land >transfer to tribes. Thinks state should get one as well, because >the land use won't change. >--Rumors have been going around about planned industrial or >commercial development along the river. They are not true. The >Governor has no such plans. >--State would like to lease recreation areas along river from COE >within a month or two, prior to the actual land transfer, which >will probably take years. >--State wants to prepare for Lewis and Clark bicentennial >celebration by making sure rec. facilities are up to par. COE >has not maintained them adequately, and state would like to begin >upgrades ASAP. >--State is taking cultural resource concerns very seriously and >wants them fully addressed in the implementation process. >--Land surveys (which may take years) are not necessary for the >transfer to take place. We know what land we're talking about. > >Young: >--BIA formally requests that some of the funding for Title VI >implementation be directed to BIA to cover their costs. > >Washburn: >--We need a cost estimate from you so we can appropriate funds in >Congress. > >DuBray and Jandreau both objected to BIA taking implementation >funding. > >Emory: >--CRST would like extension on comment period to get written >comments to COE. > >Cooper: >--State is working on forming an Advisory Commission to make sure >that federal regulations under NAGPRA and other laws, which >according to Title VI apply to lands transferred to the state, >are properly applied. > >Cedar Face: >--These tribal governments (CRST and LBST) are basically an >extension of the federal government. They don't represent the >Sioux Nation and they don't represent me. Why are you dealing >with them on land issues? > >Cooper: >--We're trying to make sure everyone is represented and heard in >this process. > >Jones: >--Yesterday Westphal met with BHSNTC and promised to take a look >at the treaty issues... your concerns are being addressed. > >Hoffman: >--clarification re earlier request from CRST... there is no >deadline on the comment period for the USGS waterflow impact >study. > >DuBray: >--CRST formally requests a meeting with USGS hydrologist Dan >Driscoll to discuss the waterflow impact study. > >(break for lunch) > >Jones: >--Long history of LBST frustration (understatement) facing COE >indifference to cultural sites "washing away." >--COE has been "criminally negligent" in its caretaking of >Lakota, Mandan, Arikara, and Hidatsa cultural sites along the >river. >--LBST views this legislation as best opportunity to finally get >land back from COE and take care of sites properly themselves, >but needs funding to do this. >--Land was taken by COE over fifty years ago... now finally with >this bill we have an opportunity to get back what is rightfully >ours. > >McPhillips: >--COE hasn't done its environmental job, USFWS is involved to >make sure proper NEPA procedures are followed in transfer, and to >make sure everyone receiving land under Title VI drafts a >"General Plan" for preserving endangered species wildlife habitat >along river. >--USFWS sent COE a proposed General Plan every ten years or so, >COE never acted. > >Emory: >--Why should CRST and LBST be held to higher environmental >standards than COE was, when they have much less funding? > >Thomas: >--Let's get work teams formed to handle all these implementation >issues. >--Is each party (COE, SDGF&P, BIA, LBST, CRST) ready to name one >person as project manager, to be contact person and conduit for >all information re Title VI implementation? These five people >will then form the Coordinating Team. >-- Candace Thomas for COE >-- Rick Collignon for SDGF&P >-- Tom Young for BIA > > >Emory, Frazier, Jandreau, Jones, etc: >--CRST and LBST aren't going to just go along with COE plan for >doing all this. We need more than one person to be primary >contact, because we're overstretched w/ personnel and all of us >have other duties besides Title VI. We're sovereign governments >and you can't just dictate this process to us like this. > >(Work team formation put on hold) > >Washburn: >--Daschle open to special legislation this summer allowing land >transfers to CRST and LBST to go through quickly, after which >tribes can contract w/ COE to get funds to do cultural site, >habitat mitigation work. We can start working on this >legislation as soon as next week. > >Young: >--Treaty issues involved here are major and important. Shouldn't >they be discussed in this process somewhere? > >Emory: >--NO! Treaty issues are not relevant to this implementation >process, due to the 1889 Allotment Act and subsequent court >decisions. > >Thomas: >--Asst Sec Westphal did promise Treaty Council in Rapid City that >COE will study treaty issues as part of implementation process, >but this partnership group may not be the appropriate place to >address those concerns. > >Emory: >--Treaty Council is not legally representative of federally >recognized Sioux tribes, tribal governments are legally elected >representatives. Treaty Council does not have the right to >request the COE to study our treaties. Only the tribal >governments have the legal right to discuss treaty issues on a >govt to govt basis with the US govt. >--COE, an arm of the Dept of Defense, is not an appropriate place >for the US govt to address treaty issues. > >(funding issues discussed for rest of pm; covered more thoroughly >in discussion below, day 2) > >(Day 2) >CRST requests formal apology from COE for comment made by Project >Manager Thomas to CRST Atty Genl Emory after meeting yesterday. > >(Background: Emory said "The problem with this whole process is >that I wasn't at the first Partnership meeting in Wash DC," to >which an annoyed and stressed Thomas responded "As far as I'm >concerned, you shouldn't be at any of these meetings.") > >Thomas: It happened in private and should be resolved in >private. > >Emory: Disagree it should be handled in private. Presence of >Attorney General directed by CRST tribal govt, therefore her >comment insult to CRST govt. > >(Thomas later formally apologized to Emory and CRST on behalf of >COE) > >Court stenographer at future meetings requested by CRST and LBST. > >introductions... > >Tom Cheyenne, Lakota remarks: relates the history of white/Lakota >relations re treaty/gold/money. We talk, we write it down but >the land goes and we get nothing. There is no land for our >tiyospaye and our families. The people The common man has no >chance to speak. I am a common man, I am here to speak for the >people. The dead are there in this land. The whites talk, but >God is there. Now the whites have everything. Today we talk >some more. The whites always just want us to get out of the way. > >Steve Emory, response in Lakota: All of the land is God's, but >the organization / boundaries (?) need to hold it (title). These >people are not all part of the government. Today we have our >women and children to care for. Who will do this? You say the >people. Remember what has happened before. > >Isaac White Face, in Lakota: commends Tom for speaking, and for >what he said. Cautions Steve not to forget, with all his >education and money, to listen to the things Tom said. Says >white man's education and money changes your mind. Rebukes Steve >as an elder. (Gives a handshake and thanks to Tom, Emily, Eileen, >and Paul, then leaves meeting) > >Emory: Thanks Tom and Isaac for speaking from their hearts and >for speaking for these things. > >Emily Iron Cloud: relates the history of her family and work with >Black Hills. You took these lands to finance your first >colonies. You take our resources. We have not been able to >utilize our land, our water etc. You take these things without >our consent. Six tribes are formally opposed to this transfer. >Daschle is a criminal for not allowing us to have a hearing. You >cannot do this, take the actions, take these lands without the >consent of entire Sioux Nation. We do not oppose CRST and LBST >getting land or funds, just transfer to state. > >Eileen Iron Cloud: This will not happen. State of South Dakota, >you will not receive this land. Washburn, take this to Sen >Daschle: six tribes have asked for hearings - is that too much to >ask, to be heard? Also, '94 JTAC for SRST - still nothing done. >Why move so fast on this? We know you want this land. > >Paul Robertson, SD Peace and Justice Center: Official position >calling for oversight hearings on Title VI. > >Rich Shangreaux, Teton Nation: You are trying to control the >future of our nation. All you see is the money you will make. >You are making my elders cry -- you don't do that. How can you >all work so hard to hurt our people? > >Charmaine White Face: Freelance writer from Wounded Knee >district, 8 children, 14 grandchildren. Started writing in 1994 >abt this - elder man from CRST forwarded alert to her. Col Volz >spoke abt govt to govt relationship. Do you uphold the >constitution? How can an act of legislation supersede the >constitution or a treaty, the supreme law of the land? Prophecy >- when women come forward it will be a battle of spirit. Women >are spiritual warriors. We pray for Daschle and Janklow for good >health -- not just physical but mental, spiritual, emotional. We >will fight for our future, children. You have to listen with >your hearts, not just your minds. > >Following these comments, COE called for break in meeting. >Allowed bureacrats and functionaries time to stand around talking >about fishing and clear the emotional energy from the room. > >Gov Janklow arrived during this break and requested that COE >lease all recreation sites along river to the state for >improvements, immediately. COE responded that upon receipt of a >formal request, sites could be leased to state within thirty >days. > >(meeting reconvened) > >Wemhoener, representing Col Robert Volz (district manager for >Omaha district): >--Gov Janklow is interested in leasing more recreation sites >along river from us, as we have leased them in the past. Janklow >will write official letter requesting these leases. > >Frazier: >--If SD can lease these sites from Corps, why can't we? CRST >would like to lease four rec sites between Cheyenne River >Reservation and Oahe Dam. > >Wemhoener: >--Send COE a formal request and we will consider it. Those four >sites in particular currently not leased to anyone else. >--(Proceeded to presentation re funding for Title VI >implementation) >--COE is funded by Congress on a project-by-project basis, it has >no general program funds. Title VI is a project, Army is the >action agent for implementation of Title VI. >--Candy Thomas is COE Title VI Project Manager, responsible for >budget, schedule and oversight. She is the responsible agent for >COE. >--COE can do work necessary for Title VI implementation in-house, >contract it out, or any combination of the two. Contracts >possible w/ tribes, state, any other federal agency. >--U.S. Govt currently holds title to the lands affected by Title >VI. Under Title VI, those titles will be transferred to the >state of South Dakota and to the BIA to hold in trust for the >tribes. >--COE has been directed by Congress to reprogram $800,000 from >other projects for implementing Title VI in remainder of FY1999. >COE tentatively plans to use roughly $300,000 of those funds to >do preliminary inventory work on protection of cultural sites, >$400,000 to pay for partnership meeting costs, and the remainder >is free for other necessary work. >--COE is not a funding agency. It is not authorized to >distribute funds from project budgets to other entities, apart >from contracting for specific work on the project. >--Once Congress actually appropriates funds for this project, COE >will work with tribes and state to implement requirements of >Title VI. To date this is an unfunded project. $800,000 was not >appropriated, merely redirected from other COE projects. >--Leasee of rec areas on river are responsible for upkeep, >maintenance etc. This is a funding drain on responsible agency. >Agency leasing sites (eg SD) must guarantee COE that they will >get the funds somewhere. [implied: CRST and LBST don't have the >money necessary to do this] >--Title VI is silent on COE taken lands within SRST and CCST >reservation boundaries. Some rec sites within those reservations >are currently leased by SD. Under Title VI, US govt will retain >title to those lands, and COE will continue to maintain them. >COE will honor leases to state until term of lease expires. >--New appropriations from Congress for FY2000 (possibly $3 >million?) - use depends on how appropriations are written into >law. In current Senate Appropriations version, $3 million is >appropriated to COE as one lump sum for Title VI implementation. >In the end, there may be other limitations, restrictions, or the >money may be subdivided and allocated by Congress for specific >purposes. Until that bill passes, no one can say how much money >will be available for anything. > >Emory: >--Let's be honest here. There's a big difference between >authorization and a mandate. Title VI authorizes certain >activities, doesn't mandate them. Right now there are 0 dollars >available for anything. The tribes need money to do their own >assessment and interpret USGS water-flow study, etc. The >$800,000 is up for grabs, and it should go to those who need it >most; the tribes. > >Wemhoener: >--COE cannot begin until Clinton signs appropriations bill into >law. Congress has said no action until appropriations, and COE >must abide by that. This is all interim funding, since it will >be seven or eight years before trust funds mandated by Title VI >for tribes and state are fully capitalized and available for use. > >Emory: >--In the absence of mandated (trust fund) funding, the tribes >have no tax base to fund anything because you all stole it from >us. Now the state of SD has this tax base. >--Also, funds from taxes on fishing & hunting licenses sold, etc, >goes to state of SD. We get none of that money either. >--Legislation needed to give tribes preference in contracting for >services w/ COE anywhere in Indian Country to make up for these >imbalances. > >Wemhoener: >--At minimum, it will take two years to complete the land >transfer process with all preliminary work necessary. That's an >extremely optimistic estimate, only possible if COE is fully >funded to complete work (EIS, cultural sites, wildlife work etc). >If less than fully funded, will take longer. We may even have to >survey the land to be transferred; that's a monumental task and >could well take years by itself. >--COE Draft Implementation Plan (w/ multi-year implementation >budget) due for review in August. > >List of work teams decided upon: >--Coordinating Team (Legislative, Funding, Misc subsumed) >--Real Estate (USGS / Rec Areas subsumed) >--Cultural Resources >--NEPA process (Legislative/Jurisdictional) >--Consultation > >Names from each party for teams to be submitted by June 18. >Teams should meet and have something ready to present by next >meeting. > >Next meeting: >July 20 & 21 on CRST reservation.